In general, then, it may be said that while the French or classical theory results in monumental effects for a city and establishes unity, the German or individualistic treatment preserves for an old city a homelike feeling and a pleasing variety. It is worthy of note, however, that where city planning has been undertaken by masters, whether in France or Germany, the two theories have been used as circumstances warranted. It is only where designers are not able to handle their subject in its entirety, but have become slaves to a system, that results have been attained at great money cost and with a loss of charm and picturesqueness that by intelligent study might have been saved.[7] Napoleon Bonaparte, in exile on St. Helena, one day amused himself by planning improvements for London. He would make, he said, a grand thoroughfare from St. Paul’s to the Thames; and two wide streets along the Thames, one on either side of the river. He would build more bridges, and would remove from the vicinity of public buildings the mean old structures which disfigure the fine monuments. It would be easy to do this, he thought, in a city so rich as London.[8] Albert Shaw, in his work on _Municipal Government in Great Britain_, says: “If London within the lifetime of men still in their prime had taken due precautions, what errors might have been avoided! London is now creating a park system, and acquiring land that has quadrupled in value within thirty years. London is widening and straightening streets, and increasing thereby the expense of appropriating frontage that costs twice as much now as it would have cost a few years ago. The people of London suffer an inestimable loss in convenience and actual money through the haphazard nature of passenger transportation facilities.”